So if I'm driving my 17 year old

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

and we're both smoking, I can be prosecuted?

Seems strange to me given that a 16 year old can legally smoke.

AIBU to think they should have thought it through a bit more with regards to age?

Not discussing the health implications, more interested in the potential for time-wasting for both smokers & Plod...

I imagine it will be policed slightly less diligently than the "mobile phones and texting while driving" law.

If I ever see a police car down my road I'll offer them a map, because they must be lost.

Lurking - compared to careless or dangerous driving e.g. cars being driven erratically, too fast, tailgating, running red lights, dangerous overtaking, drivers talking or texting on handheld mobile phones, unrestrained children in cars, etc... then yes, given that the police have limited resources, I think it's appropriate for the police to consider smoking in a car with children as low down the priority list.

Obviously smoking around children is bad. I wouldn't want my children exposed to second hand cigarette smoke. But I think that smoking in a car with children doesn't carry such an acute risk to those children and other road users as careless or dangerous driving does.

I think the law only looks silly if you look at the extremes. how can you not think that it's good to try and protect children from being stuck in an enclosed environment with smoke?

Exactly. Anyone with half a brain knows smoking in a car with children is forcing children to inhale smoke. Anything which helps to reinforce what a stupid and selfish act that is is fine by me. But oh no, let's make up extreme examples of how it might be applied.

In case anyone didn't notice you can legally get married at 16- in Scotland you don't even need your parents' permission. You wouldn't be able to buy yourself (or anyone else) a drink at your wedding. Taken in isolation that makes the laws on alcohol seem absurd too.

Wish it had been the law when I was a child.

Numerous journeys unable to breathe properly...

Don't care if it's enforced, I just hope it stops some of the idiots who think it's an ok thing to do.

Lurking - compared to careless or dangerous driving e.g. cars being driven erratically, too fast, tailgating, running red lights, dangerous overtaking, drivers talking or texting on handheld mobile phones, unrestrained children in cars, etc... then yes, given that the police have limited resources, I think it's appropriate for the police to consider smoking in a car with children as low down the priority list.

Smoking while driving should be on this list anyway. It's distracting, it effectively makes you drive one handed, smoke gets in your eyes, and you have the potential to drop it or whatever....smoking and driving is as bad as talking on a phone and driving.

Are the posters inventing reasons to be against this the same posters who are inventing reasons why a 5p charge on carrier bags will be the end of civilisation as we know it in the thread about that subject?

I think it's an excellent law, and I think it's also excellent that the police have decided not to make it enforcing it a priority. Laws are not just about prosecuting people who break them, but codifying acceptable behaviour. When we were kids, it became illegal to drive without a seatbelt. Very very few people were every prosecuted for driving without a seatbelt, and yet today, it is automatic for most of us to buckle up as soon as we get into a car. Hopefully it will become automatic for smokers to wait until they are out of their cars to smoke and stop them from harming their children's health as much.

Jawanna if the law was framed like that then I would be for it, rather than pissed off at the mealy mouthed, squeaky wheel pleasing pseudo law, that it currently is.

Simply saying you cannot eat, drink, smoke or use a mobile phone or any other object or device that takes one hand off the steering wheel and/or causes a distraction to the driver would be fine by me and, I would imagine, everyone else who has moaned about the current situation.

But it doesn't. and that Lass is why I am against it.

But this law isn't about stopping people smoking in cars because it causes accidents. It's about stoping people smoking in cars with children in because there is irrefutable scientific evidence that the smoke causes significant health damage to children.

And it's not soundbite politics, it's using politics to influence behaviour. Laws passed by politicians on "social" stuff like smoking, drunkdriving, gay marriage, seat belts, corporal punishment, racism are not only informed by public opinion but also serve to inform public opinion and change people's morals and behaviour.

That is, in my opinion, soundbite politics. A cause taken up in order to further the latest social more and, unlike the laws that changed the law's view of homosexuality, does not tackle the root cause of the perceived problem.

If the government really wanted to save kids from the harm of secondary smoke they would do more to make it possible to ban smoking by law or common convention - aiding people to quit, supporting the e cig industry gather more evidence etc etc etc.

But passing situational laws, like this one, do not do what they are being touted as doing, they are a sop to the original problem, not a solution. It demonises a legal behaviour without offering a real solution. It criminalises a behaviour that is perfectly legal. It allows tax collection to continue with little fear the loud voices against will be heard... see the demonisation factor.

It is nonsensical. It does not do the job it purports to do. It appeases a squeaky wheel. It will make little/no difference at all.

Blanche I've read the first paragraph of your last post 3 times and it makes no sense to me at all.

Dealing with the effects of passive smoking on children is a bit more than " the latest social more"

You are completely missing the point that a car is a tiny, self-contained environment from which children forced to enhale smoke cannot escape.

It is not "soundbite politics" the post by TJ sums up the reason behind it very well.

I'm not missing that at all. I'll try again.

A car is only one of a number of spaces a child with smoking parents will encounter.

Banning smoking with kids in cars will not solve the root cause: children and passive smoking. It will merely remove one space. It is likely that many kids spend very little time in a car and far more time in other spaces with a smoker.

There is indeed lots of evidence re the dangers of passive smoking. So tackle that instead of passing an almost unpoliceable law that will have little or no effect on the root cause.

The latest social more I was referring to is not smoking, nor saving children from it, but the growing political more for passing laws that make them look as though they are doing something, when all that is happening is a) more ridiculous laws are being passed b) individual politicos get a pat on the back.

What is NOT happening is a coordinated effort to help smokers quit, permanently. I know this as I work p/t in a Support to Stop centre and have done for 15 years. If more money were thrown at education and support for smokers there would be a far greater success rate. Take the slow and stubborn acceptance of ecigs as a beneficial adjunct to cessation.

What is NOT happening is a concerted effort to reach a point where smoking will be able to be banned without demonising anyone.

What is NOT happening is any government voluntarily giving up its tax for the health benefits of anyone.

What is NOT happening is a lightening of the burden on the NHS, voluntary services etc who shoulder the burden of smoking from cessation to treatment and all areas of support.

This law isn't even a sticking plaster for any of the things that NEED to be done. It merely demonises a small section of society (see some of the pps here for examples) and will have an incredibly small, if any, effect on the health of children.

Does that explain my viewpoint more?

I get what you are saying Blanche

A car is one place where smoking is visible, so a law can address this.
Just because we can't stop all cases, or cure people of smoking is no reason to refuse to tackle anything - but it is a common tactic from people who want the right to keep doing something they shouldn't.

Over the years, this law will change the definition of acceptable behaviour:
I remember similar objections when the drink-driving laws and seatbelt laws first came in. So many objections then about "nanny state" and police time too.

Just because we can't stop all cases, or cure people of smoking is no reason to refuse to tackle anything - but it is a common tactic from people who want the right to keep doing something they shouldn't. Might work, if were a smoker.

I am not talking about not tackling it. Just not tackling the very sight of it. Tackle the root causes instead. They have been known for decades. The problem is that they would mean demanding something from Big Tobacco which has, historically, been impossible as they are huge, worldwide lobbyists. Happily we now have the ecig. Unhappily our government is still refusing to act on this as it should. It is being slow, stubborn, misinformed and truculent. Happily there is more research coming on line and more professionals in the health sector speaking up for it.

There is still a slim chance that the UK will, as a whole, take the opportunity rather than persist in declaiming and bemoaning smokers.

Smoking should be banned, absolutely. But we have a golden opportunity to make great inroads on the problem. This law is NOT IT. This law ignores the real opportunity for making a difference. It is a pissant law that needs to be recognised for what it is.

Well, it's classic 'denormalisation' isn't it? It sends two messages -

• Smoking in cars with children is wrong
• Smokers are selfish/stupid/whatever arseholes who smoke in cars with children therefore we need a law.

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of smokers these days wouldn't do this (out of courtesy if nothing else) or that a simple education campaign would do just as much good. It doesn't matter that children of car smokers are likely to also be subject to indoor smoke all the time at home. The purpose of the law isn't really to protect children's health (or at least that's incidental), it's to further shame smokers in the hope they will quit.

It's a noble aim (because smoking kills around half of all long term smokers) but a thoroughly dishonest tactic. Worst of all, it's stopped working. Those who could be shamed into quitting have largely already managed to quit. The ones who are left are frequently too ashamed to seek help with quitting, or have developed a defiant 'fuck you' attitude to tobacco control, for their own sanity.

We've seen this sort of thing before with the indoor public smoking ban. Here's what the House of Lords made of it:

77. In order to evaluate the operation of risk policy in this area, we considered a range of evidence, much of which cast doubt on the stated rationale of the legislation. In her evidence to us, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, commented that:

"it is clearly the case that, in relation to deaths from smoking and second-hand smoke, the most serious aspect of that is smoking in the home. Ninety-five percent of deaths are related to smoking in the home"[50].

Other evidence we received suggested that the health risks associated with passive smoking are relatively minor and the main harm, if there is one, concerns children who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, which is something the bill is not designed to address[51]. Sir Richard Peto did suggest that ex-smokers might be more at risk from ETS than those who had never smoked at all, but the general tenor of his evidence indicated that the risks are uncertain and unlikely to be large[52].

78. Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated.
-----

there is irrefutable scientific evidence that the smoke causes significant health damage to children.

There's some evidence of varying quality and a lot of bluster. The BMA got caught making stuff up in 2011 when this law was first proposed.

A car is only one of a number of spaces a child with smoking parents will encounter

This ignores all the evidence that demonstrates that smoking in a car is much, much worse in terms of secondhand smoke than other places (such as homes or smoky bars, where smoking is permitted.

For example:

Canadian research found that a single cigarette smoked in a stationary car with its windows closed can produce a level of secondhand smoke 11 times higher than the level found in an average bar where smoking is permitted. In a moving car, the level of secondhand smoke produced by a single cigarette can be as high as 7 times the average level of a smoky bar.

Blanche, I take your point about the need for more funding and more holistic policies. But saying this policy is pointless ignores a pretty decent evidence base that shows smoking in cars is an area of proportionately higher risk to those who aren't making the choice for themselves.

Pubes, I am sure I must have known about that at the time. Mustn't I?

The new legislation means that drivers and passengers smoking when an under-18 is in the car, even if the windows or sunroof is open, can face a penalty fine of £50.

You need to be aware of the following:

• There are two offences – “smoking in a private vehicle with a person under 18 present” – for the person smoking within the vehicle, and “Failure to prevent smoking in a private vehicle with a person under 18 present” – for the driver if another passenger is smoking where there is a child present
• This offence does not apply to a convertible car with the roof fully down
• Drivers aged 17 are not committing the offence if they are on their own in the car
• E-cigarettes are not covered by the legislation
• Both offences carry a £50 fixed penalty notice, reduced to £30 if paid within 15 days of issue of notice

Nasty cross post there, Jassy. See the link in Pubes post!

The BMA 's revised figures, which you quoted, are also not clearly supported!

Smoking just one cigarette in a car can lead to levels of TSP that match and exceed by several times the levels found in the smokiest bars and restaurants.

That is the specific wording of the study ASH etc base their 7/11 times blurb on. I think it is an open read, I went looking after Pubes post.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688598/

Note several times and smokiest in place of 7/11 times and average.

Sadly such sloppy, self serving and deliberate misrepresentation only makes it harder to build a realistic and effective education programme, let alone follow it through with an efficacious quit programme.

I am sure I must have known about that at the time. Mustn't I?

Dunno, I wasn't on the ball back in 2011 and certainly not in 2007 when we got the public smoking ban. I think it's a side effect of being a vaper - I've found myself having to delve into research to counteract the BS about ecigs and along the journey have discovered all this other stuff about smoking.

Maybe I need to rethink the info that comes in through the office

I would have said that one of the psych bods was an avid collector and disseminator of debunking material. Maybe she had an off day but I will be taking that BMA info into my next session.

We have had the British Lung Foundation infographic up on the wall and I have not stopped to check - it uses the 11 times 'factoid'. I shall have words...
www.blf.org.uk/Page/smoking-in-cars-infographic

I have obviously become lazy about it myself

Thanks.

Blanche - I do agree that more needs to be done. Much more. But I don't agree that nothing should be done simply because nobody has the balls to do what really needs to be done. I do believe that we will eventually get to appoint where smoking becomes something done by a tiny minority, and where smoking near children - in fact subjecting anyone else to your passive smoking - is seen as morally reprehensible. The smoking in enclosed public places ban was the start of a process towards that goal, and this is an incremental step. We are far more likely to reach the end of the process by taking small steps than by waiting until people are ready to make a giant leap.